"Philosophy is an artform of what man does best"

"Philosophy is an artform of what man does best: explain. Rhetorical mumbojumbo with, at least, seeds of subjective truth. Indeed, philosophy is just as much connected to art as it is to the sciences. Intertwined with the colorful shapes of subjectivity, instead of cold, harsh and concrete objectivity. But in its search for the link between two worlds, it found something that objectivity lacks altogether: a bridge between objectivity and subjectivity. How the world in itself collides with our lenses, what is reality, and above all: What is the truth?"

I'm not a big fan of these kinds of metaphors, 'philosophy is an artform'. Okay, so what is art?

These kinds of metaphors often escape scrutiny because the speaker and their audience is only an expert on one half of the metaphor. I've heard countless metaphors, a musician will say "Music is like Poetry with Sound" and the poet will say "Poetry is like Music with Words". An athlete will say "Sport is a Dance" and a dancer will say "Dance is an athletic sport".

And sure, Objectivity and Subjectivity are a fundamental problem that philosophy has struggled with for a few thousand years. But I'm not seeing anything brilliant in this description of that problem. If anything, it feels like it opens up one can of worms after another. What is Philosophy, What is Truth, What is Objective, What is the Subject, What is Perception, What is Language, What is Art, What is Science, What is a World.

I don't understand why you end on the question "What is the truth". I don't know this has to be the fundamental question "above all" other questions. "What is the Subject", "What is Thought", "What is Perception" "What is the World" are all possible "Ultimate Questions"

I don't understand why you end on the question "What is the truth". I don't know this has to be the fundamental question "above all" other questions. "What is the Subject", "What is Thought", "What is Perception" "What is the World" are all possible "Ultimate Questions"

True, it is easy to escape answers just by answering a question with even more questions, but in a way, when you start a reading, do you not want this? (Sorry for bad engrish and typos, i'm a bit drunk and not native speaker)

Nagel describes the objective view as the "view from nowhere". You could describe the subjective view as the "view from somewhere" or the "view from here". What we need is a "view from everywhere" or something. That's the best I got, but since this is Veeky Forums, some Hegelian should come around any minute now and make claims about Hegel solving everything and how I'm a pleb.

Wouldn't you need an ability to perceive the truth, to understand the truth, a subject to do the understanding and perceiving and a world for the subject to inhabit? Surely Truth comes after those things. There is no truth without a Subject to notice it.

Further, you can create entirely philosophies on our inability to determine truth. Lately I've been wondering if all philosophy shouldn't start from the position that 'Misperception is the only guarantee". That is, we are born blind and deaf and dumb, and come to believe all sorts of ridiculous things that turn out to be false.

Another (not proofread) quote: "With each line, with each consequent stroke we lose more of ourself to the nonself, until all that is left is a insignificantly small and weak, mutilated body. With this recognizion we falter, for the first time, we crave and reach out for any hands that would help us. We search for answers from beyond ourselves, understandably. Soon someone answers, and we build the first cornerstone of our mind. This pillar, built upon nonself, cannot support us in truth and so we construct a web of lies, a web that, in time, makes up far more of the ground we stand on than the visions of each self themselves.

Sure you need that stuff to determine truth. You might say that it's metaphysically prior to truth, but it's not epistemologically prior to truth, so to speak. "What is subject?" has to be answered with true statements.

And basing a philosophy on a contradiction amounts to basing it on nothing.

"We learn to be rhetorics to fill out a role created by conscience; at one point; i am, becomes, i am to justify myself. You become the servant of morals, and a worthless one at that. Twisting and turning your masters words to suit your needs, still claiming to be his, and only his."

Its a matter of style. I prefer to avoid using I, We, and You, unless my identtiy matters specifically, the identity of the reader matters specifically, or if we are engaged in a collective task.

So if I was writing a speech to give at a political rallies, it'd be filled with I, You and We. If I'm writing a timeless philosophical work, I'd avoid those pronouns entirely, since the reader is anyone and the 'you' isn't specific. It isn't 'you workers in the auto union" or "I, the candidate for election". If its a universal human, I'd aim to use terms like Human Subject, Humanity, Society, Humans, People, A Person.

Hmm I see, your point is clear, but I find (let's say in the likeness of Stirner) the personal writing, directed towards the reader, though it might be that I am not as competent of bringing such emotional link between the reader and the writer as i felt that he did.

I must admit though, the disconnectivity of emotions, especially between the writer and the reader, is often the cornerstone of Western philosophy.

And what comes to the "disconnectivity", i think 'distance' is a more correct word. We want to, emotionally, dissect ourselves from our idols, just like fron ourselves. As such, it is easier to apprisiate works of men who do not direct their words towarss us, but instead towards ideas that we are part of. Escapism in a way.

Confirm your age

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.